Schneidee, J.
An agreed statement of facts and the evidence adduced by way of a deposition in this original action establishes that a referendum petition against ordinance No. 11-1965 of the village of Springdale, Ohio, was submitted to the village clerk, who, after determining the validity of the signatures thereon, transmitted the same to the council. That body held a public hearing on the petition pursuant to the village charter, but refused to transmit the same to the board of elections on the written advice of the village solicitor that the peti-ion was invalid because the person filing the petition had failed “before circulating such petition * * * [to] file a verified copy of the proposed ordinance * * * with * * the village clerk,” as required by Section 731.32, Revised Code.1 It appears further that the referendum petition did not contain the “notice” prescribed by Section 731.33, Revised Code,2 to be printed thereon in red.
Relators, each of whom is “a resident freeholder and elector” of the village, and a circulator of the petition (omitted from the pleadings and the agreed statement of facts but conceded in the briefs of respondents) brought this action for a writ of mandamus to require the council to perform its duty under the charter and certify the petition to the Board of Elections of Hamilton County for submission to the electorate, without first requesting the solicitor to initiate the suit, as directed by Section 733.59, Revised Code.3
[4]*4Respondent Laughlin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings raises the question, not of relators’ capacity to sue, but of relators’ right to maintain the action without showing compliance with that statute. Relators insist that they appear here as “electors,” not as “taxpayers,” and contend that, as “beneficially interested” persons under Section 2731.02, Revised Code,4 compliance with the former section is excused. With the latter conclusion the court agrees on the facts presented here, but for reasons which differ from those advanced by counsel.
In a long line of cases,5 this court has repeatedly recognized the rule, as stated in 35 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 426, Section 141, that “where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of public duty, the people are regarded as the real party and the relator need not show that he has any * * * special interest in the result, since it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen or taxpayer in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced * * Furthermore, an election, whether for officers or issues, is of the utmost public conern and any duty related thereto is properly characterized as public. Significantly, no case cited in the footnote involves (1) a municipal corporation; (2) Section 733.59, Revised Code, or any statute similar thereto; or (3) an extrastatutory demand upon, and refusal of, a county prosecutor, the Attorney General or other public legal officer to institute the suit.
[5]*5Hence, relators’ capacity to sue is clear. No extended review of the nature of their right is necessary in view of the excellent discussion by Judge Spear in Pierce v. Hagans, 79 Ohio St. 9, to which we refer with approval. Suffice it to say that the right is analogous to the equitable doctrine that, where the officers or directors of a corporation will not discharge their duty, the corporation is ordinarily the proper party to redress the wrong. If on the other hand, the directors are parties to the wrong, or will not bring the action, or both, the shareholders of the corporation may institute suit.
In this state, Sections 733.56 to 733.61, inclusive, Revised Code, codify this doctrine as to municipal corporations. Rela-tors’ rights are derived from the right of the municipal corporation, the enforcement of which is imposed in the first instance by Section 733.58, Revised Code,6 upon the solicitor, who in fact represents the public, the real party in interest.7 However, Section 733.59, Revised Code, places upon any one who would step forward and volunteer to protect the public the condition that he first make written request upon the solicitor to act. Only upon the failure of the latter pursuant to the request, may the private party “institute suit in his own name, on behalf of the municipal corporation.”8 It has been cor[6]*6rectly pointed out that the statute is intended to prevent the municipal corporation from becoming a plaintiff in court without its consent.9
That the word, “taxpayer,” is employed in the statutes neither assists relators, nor defeats them, as will presently he shown. As resident freeholders and electors, they are necessarily taxpayers. Even if they were permitted to abjure their capacity as resident freeholders which they insist upon doing, it is difficult to see how they can escape the condition precedent in Section 733.59, Revised Code. An “elector” necessarily is a domiciliary and it would he an extreme situation wherein such person might not in fact pay any tax, directly or indirectly, to the political subdivision of his domicile.
But the sounder view is that the word, “taxpayer,” is to be construed generally, not literally. It includes, in fact, freeholders and tenants, both resident and nonresident, citizens and electors. It also includes a nonresident and nonfreeholder municipal income taxpayer.10
The substantial question then comes down to this: Did the circumstances here show that it would have been unavailing to have made a request upon the solicitor. We think so. The solicitor formalized in writing his opinion that the referendum petition was invalid and presented that opinion to his employers, the council, who refused further action upon it. The lines were drawn, an unalterable stand was made and the gauntlet was thrown down. Thereafter, a request to bring suit in the face of those facts would not only have been in vain but the chain of events was equivalent to a refusal by the village of its consent to be made the party plaintiff and represented by its solicitor in a prospective legal action against its council. Therefore, these relators, on behalf of the public who are the municipal corporation, may maintain this action against the council without compliance with Section 733.59, Revised [7]*7Code. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is, therefore, overruled.
On the merits, however, no clear duty on the part of council to take further action on the referendum has been shown and we find for the respondents.
In State, ex rel. Mika, Dir. of Law, v. Lemon, City Clerk, 170 Ohio St. 1, this court held that the requirement of Section 731.32, Revised Code, that the circulator of “a referendum petition against any ordinance * * * shall, before circulating such petition, file a verified copy of the proposed ordinance * * * with the * * * village clerk,” is mandatory. An ordinance subject to the referendum is not effective and, hence, remains a “proposed ordinance” until the expiration of the period during which it may be attacked, or if properly attacked by referendum, until the vote is taken. Thus, in the absence of compliance with that statute, no duty devolves upon anyone to take further action on any such petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schneidee, J.
An agreed statement of facts and the evidence adduced by way of a deposition in this original action establishes that a referendum petition against ordinance No. 11-1965 of the village of Springdale, Ohio, was submitted to the village clerk, who, after determining the validity of the signatures thereon, transmitted the same to the council. That body held a public hearing on the petition pursuant to the village charter, but refused to transmit the same to the board of elections on the written advice of the village solicitor that the peti-ion was invalid because the person filing the petition had failed “before circulating such petition * * * [to] file a verified copy of the proposed ordinance * * * with * * the village clerk,” as required by Section 731.32, Revised Code.1 It appears further that the referendum petition did not contain the “notice” prescribed by Section 731.33, Revised Code,2 to be printed thereon in red.
Relators, each of whom is “a resident freeholder and elector” of the village, and a circulator of the petition (omitted from the pleadings and the agreed statement of facts but conceded in the briefs of respondents) brought this action for a writ of mandamus to require the council to perform its duty under the charter and certify the petition to the Board of Elections of Hamilton County for submission to the electorate, without first requesting the solicitor to initiate the suit, as directed by Section 733.59, Revised Code.3
[4]*4Respondent Laughlin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings raises the question, not of relators’ capacity to sue, but of relators’ right to maintain the action without showing compliance with that statute. Relators insist that they appear here as “electors,” not as “taxpayers,” and contend that, as “beneficially interested” persons under Section 2731.02, Revised Code,4 compliance with the former section is excused. With the latter conclusion the court agrees on the facts presented here, but for reasons which differ from those advanced by counsel.
In a long line of cases,5 this court has repeatedly recognized the rule, as stated in 35 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 426, Section 141, that “where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of public duty, the people are regarded as the real party and the relator need not show that he has any * * * special interest in the result, since it is sufficient that he is interested as a citizen or taxpayer in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced * * Furthermore, an election, whether for officers or issues, is of the utmost public conern and any duty related thereto is properly characterized as public. Significantly, no case cited in the footnote involves (1) a municipal corporation; (2) Section 733.59, Revised Code, or any statute similar thereto; or (3) an extrastatutory demand upon, and refusal of, a county prosecutor, the Attorney General or other public legal officer to institute the suit.
[5]*5Hence, relators’ capacity to sue is clear. No extended review of the nature of their right is necessary in view of the excellent discussion by Judge Spear in Pierce v. Hagans, 79 Ohio St. 9, to which we refer with approval. Suffice it to say that the right is analogous to the equitable doctrine that, where the officers or directors of a corporation will not discharge their duty, the corporation is ordinarily the proper party to redress the wrong. If on the other hand, the directors are parties to the wrong, or will not bring the action, or both, the shareholders of the corporation may institute suit.
In this state, Sections 733.56 to 733.61, inclusive, Revised Code, codify this doctrine as to municipal corporations. Rela-tors’ rights are derived from the right of the municipal corporation, the enforcement of which is imposed in the first instance by Section 733.58, Revised Code,6 upon the solicitor, who in fact represents the public, the real party in interest.7 However, Section 733.59, Revised Code, places upon any one who would step forward and volunteer to protect the public the condition that he first make written request upon the solicitor to act. Only upon the failure of the latter pursuant to the request, may the private party “institute suit in his own name, on behalf of the municipal corporation.”8 It has been cor[6]*6rectly pointed out that the statute is intended to prevent the municipal corporation from becoming a plaintiff in court without its consent.9
That the word, “taxpayer,” is employed in the statutes neither assists relators, nor defeats them, as will presently he shown. As resident freeholders and electors, they are necessarily taxpayers. Even if they were permitted to abjure their capacity as resident freeholders which they insist upon doing, it is difficult to see how they can escape the condition precedent in Section 733.59, Revised Code. An “elector” necessarily is a domiciliary and it would he an extreme situation wherein such person might not in fact pay any tax, directly or indirectly, to the political subdivision of his domicile.
But the sounder view is that the word, “taxpayer,” is to be construed generally, not literally. It includes, in fact, freeholders and tenants, both resident and nonresident, citizens and electors. It also includes a nonresident and nonfreeholder municipal income taxpayer.10
The substantial question then comes down to this: Did the circumstances here show that it would have been unavailing to have made a request upon the solicitor. We think so. The solicitor formalized in writing his opinion that the referendum petition was invalid and presented that opinion to his employers, the council, who refused further action upon it. The lines were drawn, an unalterable stand was made and the gauntlet was thrown down. Thereafter, a request to bring suit in the face of those facts would not only have been in vain but the chain of events was equivalent to a refusal by the village of its consent to be made the party plaintiff and represented by its solicitor in a prospective legal action against its council. Therefore, these relators, on behalf of the public who are the municipal corporation, may maintain this action against the council without compliance with Section 733.59, Revised [7]*7Code. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is, therefore, overruled.
On the merits, however, no clear duty on the part of council to take further action on the referendum has been shown and we find for the respondents.
In State, ex rel. Mika, Dir. of Law, v. Lemon, City Clerk, 170 Ohio St. 1, this court held that the requirement of Section 731.32, Revised Code, that the circulator of “a referendum petition against any ordinance * * * shall, before circulating such petition, file a verified copy of the proposed ordinance * * * with the * * * village clerk,” is mandatory. An ordinance subject to the referendum is not effective and, hence, remains a “proposed ordinance” until the expiration of the period during which it may be attacked, or if properly attacked by referendum, until the vote is taken. Thus, in the absence of compliance with that statute, no duty devolves upon anyone to take further action on any such petition.
For that reason and for the further reason that there was also a failure here to comply with Section 731.33, Revised Code, it becomes necessary to determine whether that section and Section 731.32 are applicable in Springdale in view of its charter provisions relating to the initiative and referendum, which make but three departures from Sections 731.28.to 731.41, inclusive, Revised Code.11
The Springdale charter is silent with respect to language to be contained on a referendum petition or with respect to [8]*8filing such, petition with a village official prior to its circulation, but provides that “all other matters relating to the question of the exercise of the power of referendum shall he regulated hy the provision of the Revised Code of Ohio relating to referendum petitions
Sections 731.32 and 731.33, Revised Code, set forth mandatory requirements clearly relating to the exercise of the referendum power by the people. They are, by express charter provision, the law in Springdale, and Section 731.41, Revised Code,12 is inapplicable.
It is unnecessary, therefore, to inquire whether the council had the right to determine its own jurisdiction of the referendum petition, or whether it had no discretion except to repeal the ordinance or transmit the referendum petition to the board of elections.13 A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel submission to the electorate of an invalid referendum petition.
Writ denied.
Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Brown, JJ., concur.